As regards the “ill-fated” article, as you call it, you argue very
strangely, really, or rather you don’t argue at all, but get excited and
skip your arguments. Now just look, really—from a distance—what you
make of it:

“... I simply have a feeling (!) that it is not a matter (!) of points
of accusation (!), but ‘generally’...”.

This is what you write, word for word!! How can one argue like this? It
amounts to stopping the mouth of every person who wants to argue and
discuss. The Editorial Board’s letter gives precise indications
and formulations of the differences, but you work yourself up: feeling,
accusation, generally....

You read a lecture “on the same subject”, and none of the
O.C. writers “so much as mentioned anarchism”.

But again—is that an argument? There is nothing about anarchism in
the Editorial Board’s letter either. What exactly you said at the lecture
cannot be established. That the O.C. writers are foolish—is a fact. But
you add:
“I gave it to them hot on other points”....

“Opportunism is fear of what the liquidationist-yellow Maria
Alexeyevna[4] [Potresov] will say.”

Pretty strong. Yes. But it’s wide of the mark! For I maintain that
Potresov here is right against
Bazarov.[5]

(1) Is this correct or not? You do not go into it.—(2) Is it a bad
thing for the yellows to be right against the errors of our
people? You disposed of the issue by the use of strong language. It works
out that it is you who “fear” to give thought to the significance of
Potresov’s being right against Bazarov!

“...You cannot impute to me denial of the struggle for democracy....”
I impute to you a number of mistakes on this question and point out exactly
which. But you avoid the issue.

You formulate three “statements”, alleged to be “absolutely
indisputable and orthodoxically Marxist”, to which the first chapter
“could be reduced”.

But these statements (1) are so general that they are still a long way
off from concreteness; (2nd and most important of all) it is not
what the article says!!

Pardon me, this is untrue. This is stated most precisely in
the Editorial Board’s letter, but you do not answer the things we
said and pointed out. Not a sound in reply to any of our
numerous and precise remarks!!

One of our remarks: you break off quotations from Marx and Engels
in a way that misrenders the sense or makes for inexact
conclusions. You answer only on this point, and how do you answer? That “I
know the continuation (of the quotations) perfectly well”. “But on the
points in question they had views which are not liable to
misinterpretation.”

And that’s that!! It would be funny were it not so
sad. “Misinterpretation” is just what we write about precisely;
without examining a single argument or producing a single
quotation (I compared them purposely; I did not write you for
nothing; I compared more than one quotation!), you dismiss the
matter: “not liable to misinterpretation”. The blame rests fully upon
you—instead of a discussion of differences, you wave the matter away.

No one accused you either of “heresy” or of “anarchism” in this
connection, but we wrote: “let it mature”. These are “two big
differences”. You not only do not answer our remarks, but you read a
different meaning into them. You can’t do that!

“The article has been lying a long time....” Now this is backdated
cavilling. We corresponded with Gr. on this for a
long time, as we had other articles to attend to. You had not fixed any
dates yet, and no one could know of your possible departure. This is just
cavilling.

As for “chucking out” and polemic in a non-break tone, I must say
that I have not yet entered into polemic with you in the press,
but exchanged letters with you before any polemic and in order
to avoid it. That’s a fact. Facts are stubborn
things.[1]
You can’t beat facts by gossip. My answer
to P. Kievsky is for the press (not to you, but to P. Kievsky) and we grant
him a privilege we have never granted anyone before: we
send the article to him first for his “agreement”. (Unfortunately, the
copyist fell ill in the middle of the work: that is why we haven’t got the
article yet, and you probably won’t see it before your departure; but
we have the mail with America, and P. Kievsky will probably
forward it on to you. We cannot take it from, this copyist and give it to
another, because he is in a different town; we have no other one in view;
he is hard up, and we can not deprive him of even these tiny
earnings promised him beforehand.)

P. Kievsky’s article is very bad and he’s hopelessly muddled (generally
on the question of
democracy).[2]

That we always thought highly of you and spent months, many months,
corresponding in detail and pointing out since the spring of 1915
that on the question of a minimum programme and democracy you were
vacillating—you are aware. I would sincerely be pleased if we had a
polemic only with P. Kievsky, who started it, and if our
differences with you were ironed out. To achieve this, however, it is
necessary that you should go into the questions at issue carefully and
attentively, and not wave them away.

I am very, very pleased that we both see eye to eye against
“disarmament”. I was also very glad to make the acquaintance of Franz: he
must have had some good work done on him in the way of Bolshevik
propaganda; no small credit for this is probably due to you. The man tries
to go deep into things and promises well.

I am enclosing the certificate. Correspondence with America can be
conducted only through Scandinavia: otherwise everything
gets lost; the French censorship is brazen.

Regarding America. I wrote a number of letters there in 1915:
all were confiscated by the accursed French and British censors.

(3) To arrange, if possible, for the most important publications and
pamphlets of the Socialist Party and the Socialist Labour Party (I have
only the Appeal to Reason) to be sent gratis to the C.C.

(4) Cahan, editor of a Jewish New York newspaper, visited me
in Cracow in 1912 and promised me, among other things, to send publications
of official economic statistics of the United States (these publications
are given out to newspaper offices free of charge there), saying that his
paper had such a huge forwarding office that this would be no trouble. He
did not keep his promise. If you meet him, put out feelers as to whether it
is hopeless or not.

(5) It would be a good thing to form a small group of Russian
Bolsheviks and Lettish Bolsheviks capable of following interesting
literature, sending it, writing about it, translating and printing
what we send from here, and in general discussing together and “pushing”
all kinds of questions about the III International and about the “Left”
in the international socialist movement.

If a couple of Bolsheviks were actively linked with a couple of Letts
possessing a good knowledge of English, then the thing might work.

(6) Generally, give special attention to the Letts. Try in particular
to see Berzin. He can probably be traced through Strahdneks.

(7) At the end of 1914 or in 1915 I received from America a leaflet of
the Socialist Propaganda League with a profession de foi in the
spirit of the Zimmerwald Left. I am enclosing their address. I sent
them a long letter in English. Probably went astray? I shall try
and find the copy and send it to you, if you think it worth while on
inquiry. I also wrote to the Letts about the League through Strahdneks:
must have gone astray too.

(8) There should be a base in America for work against the
English bourgeoisie, which has carried the censorship to crazy
lengths. This to § 5.

(9) Try and answer us without delay, if only by a couple of lines in a
postcard, so that we can make an attempt to establish proper
contact with America; and give us notice (1–1 1/2, months)
beforehand of the date of your return.

Notes

[2]I don’t know what Grigory wrote you, and I cannot answer you on this
point. You call what he has written you “impertinent non
sense”.... H’m.... H’m! Aren’t you afraid of this being a “break” tone?
I never push things that far in my polemic with P. Kievsky. —Lenin

[3]This is a reply to Bukharin’s letter, received early in October 1916,
in which he questioned the critical remarks to his article “A Contribution
to the Theory of the Imperialist State”.

[5]The journal Letopis No. 5 for May 1916 published an article by
V. Bazarov, “The Present Situation and Perspectives”, giving an analysis
of the economic crisis in Russia caused by the imperialist war. In this
article Bazarov called the division of the Party’s Programme into minimum
and maximum an “anachronism” and stated that the struggle for democratic
reforms was needless.

Potresov in his article “Notes of a Publicist”, published in August
1916 in No. 1 of the Menshevik journal Dyelo, wrote that
“Maximalist optimism” (this was how he characterised Bazarov s views)
which does away with “all immediate tasks of democracy” “is the greatest
enemy of the democratic movement, its best and most reliable
disorganiser”.

It is probably this statement in Potresov’s article that Lenin has in
view.